T-Rex Property AB v. Pattison Outdoor Advertising Limited Partnership

T-Rex Property AB v. Pattison Outdoor Advertising Limited Partnership

The Court found an additional amount of security for costs was warranted because there is a demonstrable gap between the security ordered and actual expenses and the additional expenses were not reasonably foreseeable when the April 16, 2021 order was made. However, Pattison failed to provide a marginal analysis and unjustifiably sought large expert disbursements beyond what the prior order contemplated. Applying the methodology used by Prothonotary Steele (top of Tariff B column IV with 25% uplift, then a 20% reduction for coverage of Pattison’s counterclaim) and limiting expert disbursements to a modest amount given lack of detail and reasonableness concerns, the Court granted an...

Citation
2022 FC 1007
Parties
Plaintiff/defendant by Counterclaim: T-REX PROPERTY AB; Defendant/plaintiff by Counterclaim: PATTISON OUTDOOR ADVERTISING LIMITED PARTNERSHIP; Defendant/plaintiff by Counterclaim: PATTISON OUTDOOR ADVERTISING LTD; Defendant/plaintiff by Counterclaim: JIM PATTISON INDUSTRIES LTD; Defendant/plaintiff by Counterclaim: ONESTOP MEDIA GROUP INC
Court
Federal Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
8 July 2022
Procedural Posture
Patent Infringement / Pre Trial Motion for Additional Security for Costs (interim Order)
Legal Topics
Patent Infringement, Security for Costs, Expert Witness Fees, Tariff B, Federal Courts Rules
Source Language
English
Intellectual Property Civil Procedure Costs and Taxation Patent Infringement Security for Costs Expert Witness Fees Tariff B Federal Courts Rules

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

T-REX PROPERTY AB

Plaintiff/defendant by Counterclaim

PATTISON OUTDOOR ADVERTISING LIMITED PARTNERSHIP

Defendant/plaintiff by Counterclaim

PATTISON OUTDOOR ADVERTISING LTD

Defendant/plaintiff by Counterclaim

JIM PATTISON INDUSTRIES LTD

Defendant/plaintiff by Counterclaim

ONESTOP MEDIA GROUP INC

Defendant/plaintiff by Counterclaim

Procedural Posture

Patent Infringement / Pre Trial Motion for Additional Security for Costs (interim Order)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the security for costs previously ordered should be increased
  2. 2 Proper methodology to calculate additional security for counsel fees
  3. 3 Recoverability and reasonableness of expert witness disbursements for security purposes

Ratio Decidendi

The Court found an additional amount of security for costs was warranted because there is a demonstrable gap between the security ordered and actual expenses and the additional expenses were not reasonably foreseeable when the April 16, 2021 order was made. However, Pattison failed to provide a marginal analysis and unjustifiably sought large expert disbursements beyond what the prior order contemplated. Applying the methodology used by Prothonotary Steele (top of Tariff B column IV with 25% uplift, then a 20% reduction for coverage of Pattison’s counterclaim) and limiting expert disbursements to a modest amount given lack of detail and reasonableness concerns, the Court granted an...